News (All)

10 CMM Attorneys Named to the 2025 Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars List!

Posted: October 6th, 2025

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP is proud to announce that ten attorneys at the firm, in multiple practice areas, have been named to the 2025 Super Lawyers® list, four of them as a Rising Star. The CMM attorneys recognized this year, in practice areas including Business and CorporatePersonal InjuryReal EstateBusiness LitigationMergers & AcquisitionsConstruction LitigationEmployment Litigation, and Appeals, are:

The rigorous Super Lawyers selection process is based on peer evaluations, independent research, and professional achievement in legal practice. The Rising Stars recognition denotes superior professional achievement by attorneys who have been in practice for under 10 years or are under age 40. No more than 2.5 percent of lawyers in New York State are named to the Rising Stars list.

Learn more about CMM’s outstanding legal professionals here.

HIA-LI Economic Development Task Force “From Vacancy to Vibrancy: The Future of Mall Redevelopment on Long Island”

Posted: September 30th, 2025

Joe Campolo moderated the HIA-LI Economic Development Task Force program, “From Vacancy to Vibrancy: The Future of Mall Redevelopment on Long Island.” He was joined by Scott Burman, Founder & Principal of Burman Real Estate; Frank Vero Jr., CEO of Aurora Contractors; and Anthony W. Kim, P.E., Department Manager – Electrical and Assistant Vice President at H2M architects + engineers.

The panel led an insightful discussion on innovative redevelopment projects such as The Shops at Broadway in Hicksville, the Stony Brook Medicine Advanced Specialty Care Facility in Lake Grove, and Belmont Park Village in Elmont. The speakers shared their insights into redeveloping vacant malls as dynamic shopping, dining and entertainment destinations. They discussed the significant challenges that come with developing large-scale projects on Long Island, from navigating zoning and infrastructure hurdles to addressing community needs and market demands. Emphasizing that success requires more than just innovative ideas, the panel underscored the critical importance of assembling the right teams—developers, architects, engineers, and community stakeholders—whose collaboration is essential to turning these ambitious projects into thriving, sustainable spaces.

The event was sponsored by Strata Alliance, whose support underscores their commitment to fostering dialogue and innovation around economic development and community revitalization initiatives on Long Island.

Legal History Insights: September Issue

Posted: September 25th, 2025

By: Patrick McCormick, Esq. email

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Like the summer months, significant events in legal history occurred in September. On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed in Paris by representatives of the Colonies and Great Britain which formally ended the Revolutionary War; On September 8, 1974, President Gerald Ford granted an unconditional pardon to former President Richard Nixon; the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1862; the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal courts, was passed by Congress on September 24, 1789; the Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress on September 25, 1789; and on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed and thereafter sent to the States for ratification.  There are numerous additional significant legal events which occurred in the month of September, and each is deserving of a full article.  This article will focus on the Constitutional Convention, which took place in Philadelphia from May 25, 1787-September 17, 1787.

The story of the Constitutional Convention and the Constitution does not begin with the Convention in Philadelphia. The Articles of Confederation, which was agreed upon in 1781, did not create an executive or national courts; only a weak Confederation Congress was created.  That Congress did not have the power to levy taxes, regulate trade, or raise an army.  So weak was it that in 1785, during a dispute between Maryland and Virginia regarding trade, fishing and navigation rights on the Potomac River, without fear of reprisal, George Washington hosted, at Mount Vernon, Commissioners from both States to negotiate a resolution.  Such a meeting was in violation of the Articles of Confederation which prohibited any two States from entering into an agreement without the consent of the Confederation Congress.[i]  Shays Rebellion is another example of the weakness of the Confederation Congress.  Shays Rebellion was a violent uprising in western Massachusetts during 1786 and 1787.  At that point in time, the Articles of Confederation had been in place for about 6 years.  After the Revolutionary War, people struggled to pay debts, creditors refused to give loans and demanded payment in advance, taxes were increased, and high interest rates were charged for loans.  As a result, among other things, farmers began to lose their land and property to creditors.  Continental Army Captain Daniel Shays led an uprising against dept collection.  The Confederation Congress, which was meeting in New York, authorized raising federal troops to put down the uprising, but the various States refused to pay for the troops.  A privately funded militia was organized in Massachusetts that ultimately restored order.  George Washington noted that “Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expense of so much blood and treasure, must fall.  We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!”  Under the Articles of Confederation, the States had too much power and the national government had too little.  The result was the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Congress approved the convention in February 1787 and by March all but 3 States had elected delegates. 

The Convention was to begin May 14, 1787, in Philadelphia.  James Madison was the first delegate to arrive (May 3, 1787). When the Convention began, Edmund Randolph, the Governor of Virginia, presented the “Virginia Plan” which consisted of 15 resolutions forming an outline of a constitution.  These resolutions were the focus of debate and negotiation in the ensuing months. A contentious issue faced by the delegates was how to incorporate the States within a strong central government envisioned by the Virginia Plan, and the debate on that issue started with how to allocate representatives in Congress.  The Virginia Plan proposed to eliminate the one state/one vote system existing under the Articles of Confederation and replace it with voting by each individual representative and that legislators would be apportioned by “the number of free inhabitants.”  And thus, started what was likely the most contentious issue of the Convention and pitted small states against large states. Notably, small States outnumbered large States at the Convention and the Convention voted by State. The debate raged for about two months and, as did most issues faced during the Convention, ended with compromise.  James Wilson of Pennsylvania made a deal with South Carolina to secure its support for representation in one branch of Congress based on population by what has been called the 3/5 compromise.[ii]  This proposal initially passed by a vote of 9-2. How to determine representation in the Senate was next to be determined and Benjamin Franklin proposed the “Great Compromise” which called for proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate.[iii]

It took the delegates until the end of July 1787, more than two months after the Convention opened, for them to turn to the Chief Executive/President.  Questions that persisted were the length of the term, how to elect the President, could the President run for additional terms, could a “bad President be removed, and should he have veto power over legislation. Gouverneur Morris[iv] described the significance of the debate: “It is the most difficult of all rightly to balance the executive.  Make him too weak: the legislature will usurp his powers.  Make him too strong: he will usurp the legislature.”[v]  Again, debate ensued followed by compromise.  James Wilson proposed the elector system which helped the Southern States because while slaves could not vote, they would be counted when allocating electors. The elector system gave the people a role (electing the electors) appeased both the Southern States (3/5ths Compromise) and the large States (number of electors based on total number of representatives n the House and Senate).  The delegates recognized flaws in the provisions related to the President and anticipated amendments to address the flaws.  The 12th, 22nd and 25th Amendments each address some of those flaws.

Slavery came up again in connection with certain navigation acts and the authority of Congress.  The Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3) was agreed upon to secure eliminating a 2/3 majority voting requirement for certain navigation/trade acts.  Rufus King described the issue of slavery as one of the Constitution’s “greatest blemishes” and Madison stated that as “Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse.”[vi]

Gouverneur Morris, who drafted the Constitution’s preamble, described the Constitution as being based on compromise: “Each state [was] less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected.  And thus the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.”[vii]

On Saturday September 15, 1787 the final roll call vote occurred and the draft Constitution was approved 10-0 (Rhode Island, New York and North Carolina did not vote).  The Constitution was signed Monday September 17, 1787 and then sent to the States for ratification.


[i] Articles of Confederation, Article VI

[ii] The 3/5 “Rule” was initially proposed in 1783 by the Confederation Congress in connection with apportioning tax burdens but was never implemented.

[iii] See, Federalist No. 37

[iv] Gouverneur was a delegate from Pennsylvania but his family was originally from New York, in what is now known as the Morrisania section of the Bronx

[v] Stewart, David O., The Summer of 1787, Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 157

[vi] Ibid, p. 205

[vii] Ibid, p. 236

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Campolo Recognized as a Long Island Business Influencer in Law

Posted: September 12th, 2025

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick Managing Partner Joe Campolo has been getting things done in the business community for more than 25 years and is a recognized leader for tackling large projects and delivering results. From advising business owners and CEOs on mergers and acquisitions to running his own businesses, Campolo is immersed in finding creative solutions to complex problems. His deep, inner knowledge of the business world allows him to understand the perspective of business owners as they think about growing and selling their companies.

Campolo is also the founder and chief executive officer of Strata Alliance, a multi-family office with a network of carefully curated service providers supporting families, entrepreneurs and developers.

A member of LIBN’s prestigious Long Island Business Hall of Fame, Campolo is a top business strategist and go-to advisor for the who’s who of Long Island business. Recognized as an authority on negotiation, Campolo enjoys an advantage in complex transactions and litigation and is routinely retained in “bet the company” legal matters by companies large and small.  

Campolo is also deeply involved in philanthropy, starting his own nonprofit, CMM Cares, which supports Long Islanders facing unexpected challenges. Campolo serves on the board of the Guide Dog Foundation and America’s VetDogs. He is also a board member of the HIA-LI and chair of its Long Island Economic Development Task Force.

Campolo served honorably in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is a member of St. George’s Golf & Country Club in Stony Brook and is an executive producer of “Tribute,” an award-winning short film.

View the full LIBN Influencers in Law book here.

The Overlooked Obstacle in M&A: Existing Debt and Its Hidden Risks

Posted: September 10th, 2025

By: Vincent Costa, Esq. email, Alex Tomaro, Esq. email

M&A transactions rarely occur in a financial vacuum. Whether the target company is being acquired through an asset or equity purchase, its existing debt structure can introduce a host of legal and logistical challenges that must be carefully addressed. Overlooking these issues can lead to covenant violations, unanticipated costs, or even post-closing legal disputes.

One of the most immediate concerns is the risk of covenant breaches. Most commercial loan agreements contain a range of restrictive covenants that limit the borrower’s ability to sell assets, merge with another company, or incur new debt without the lender’s prior consent. An M&A transaction, especially one that involves a change of control or significant restructuring, can easily trigger these restrictions. Violating a covenant can result in an event of default, acceleration of the debt, or a requirement to repay the loan in full. As such, early review of credit agreements and open communication with lenders are essential.

Another common issue is prepayment penalties. If existing debt must be retired as part of the transaction, the borrower may be required to pay fees or premiums for early repayment. These penalties, often buried in the fine print of loan agreements or bond indentures, can materially impact the economics of a deal. Buyers and sellers must factor these costs into their financial modeling and, where appropriate, negotiate with lenders to reduce or waive them.

For companies with layered or syndicated financing, intercreditor consents add another level of complexity. Intercreditor agreements often give certain classes of creditors—typically senior lenders—rights to approve or block changes to the capital structure, asset sales, or collateral arrangements. Coordinating these consents across multiple stakeholders can be time-consuming and politically sensitive, particularly if some creditors view the transaction as unfavorable.

Finally, asset-based loans and secured financing arrangements often involve security interests in the target’s property, equipment, accounts receivable, or intellectual property. As part of the M&A process, these security interests must be released, a legal process that may involve obtaining lien releases, UCC-3 termination statements, or other documentation. Once the buyer acquires the assets or equity, it must re-perfect the security interests in its own name if post-closing financing is involved. This requires careful coordination with legal counsel, lenders, and filing offices to avoid gaps in collateral coverage.

In short, the intersection of M&A and existing debt obligations is a complex but critical area of legal diligence. A proactive approach—one that involves identifying all outstanding debt instruments, understanding their restrictions, engaging with lenders early, and planning for refinancing or consent logistics—can help avoid costly disruptions and ensure that financing doesn’t become a roadblock to a successful closing.

M&A Deals: Here’s What You Need to Know
How Commercial Contracts Can Make or Break Your M&A Deal
What Really Keeps M&A Deals on Track? A Closer Look at Governance and Fiduciary Duties
Consents and Approvals: The First Gate to Closing an M&A Transaction

For guidance, contact Vincent Costa at vcosta@cmmllp.com or 631-738-9100.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

What Really Keeps M&A Deals on Track? A Closer Look at Governance and Fiduciary Duties

Posted: September 10th, 2025

By: Vincent Costa, Esq. email, Alex Tomaro, Esq. email

While external factors such as regulatory approvals and contract consents often dominate M&A discussions, a range of internal corporate governance and fiduciary obligations can be equally critical, and equally capable of derailing a transaction. The governing documents, shareholder rights, and board responsibilities within the buyer and seller entities create a legal framework that must be carefully navigated to ensure the deal is valid, enforceable, and free of post-closing disputes.

At the heart of this framework are the fiduciary duties owed by directors and officers, particularly those of the selling company. In sale scenarios, these fiduciary duties—primarily the duties of care and loyalty, require directors to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. For public companies, this includes conducting a robust sale process, evaluating offers fairly, and avoiding conflicts of interest. Any perceived failure to uphold these duties may expose board members to litigation, often in the form of shareholder derivative suits or class actions. In private companies, while the scrutiny may be lower, legal risk still exists, particularly when controlling shareholders or insiders stand to benefit from the transaction.

Another key governance issue involves appraisal and dissenters’ rights, which are typically granted to minority shareholders under corporate law statutes in many jurisdictions. These rights allow dissenting shareholders to oppose the deal and demand a judicial determination of the “fair value” of their shares, which could exceed the agreed-upon purchase price. While relatively rare in amicable transactions, these claims can introduce legal complexity, delay post-closing integration, and create contingent liabilities for the buyer.

The deal process may also be constrained by charter and bylaw provisions that create procedural or structural barriers to a transaction. These include anti-takeover mechanisms such as poison pills, which dilute share value upon a triggering event, or staggered boards, which prevent full board turnover in a single election cycle. Although these provisions are often intended to protect companies from hostile takeovers, they can also slow down or block friendly transactions if not addressed early. Even seemingly benign requirements—such as supermajority voting thresholds or notice periods—can complicate timelines and introduce legal risk if improperly followed.

To navigate these challenges, buyers and sellers must conduct thorough reviews of their respective governance frameworks early in the deal process. This includes analyzing corporate charters, bylaws, shareholder agreements, and board policies to identify and mitigate potential roadblocks. In many cases, advance planning—such as securing board resolutions, amending governing documents, or negotiating waivers—can neutralize these internal obstacles and ensure compliance with fiduciary and legal obligations. Proper governance not only protects the transaction from challenge but also reinforces the legitimacy and transparency of the overall deal process.

M&A Deals: Here’s What You Need to Know
How Commercial Contracts Can Make or Break Your M&A Deal
Consents and Approvals: The First Gate to Closing an M&A Transaction
The Overlooked Obstacle in M&A: Existing Debt and Its Hidden Risks

For guidance, contact Vincent Costa at vcosta@cmmllp.com or 631-738-9100.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Christine Malafi Named to Dan’s Power Women of the East End

Posted: September 10th, 2025

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick Senior Partner Christine Malafi was named to Dan’s Power Women of the East End, recognizing extraordinary women who make the East End the thriving and vibrant place it is to work, live and do business. Malafi received her award on September 10, 2025 at the Muses in Southampton, NY.

Malafi chairs the Corporate Department at CMM, which Forbes has recognized as a Top Corporate Law Firm She has led the CMM legal team in closing countless M&A deals worth billions of dollars. She has vast experience advising on both buy-side and sell-side M&A transactions in a variety of industries, including technology, manufacturing, education, healthcare, and professional service sectors. Malafi is particularly adept at working closely and strategically with clients’ other professional advisors, including accountants, bankers, and M&A advisors, as well as forging those critical relationships for clients based on the deep network of relationships she has cultivated over years in the business. 

Malafi has the unique perspective of being a corporate lawyer who spent the first half of her career as a litigator with extensive experience in municipal, insurance coverage, and fraud issues. She brings her deep understanding of litigation and the court system to all aspects of her corporate work and uses this experience to help protect clients from a variety of critical angles. 

Read more about Dan’s Power Women of the East End.

How Commercial Contracts Can Make or Break Your M&A Deal

Posted: September 2nd, 2025

By: Vincent Costa, Esq. email, Alex Tomaro, Esq. email

Beyond regulatory approvals and consents, one of the most intricate and potentially disruptive aspects of an M&A transaction lies within the target company’s existing commercial contracts. These agreements, often buried in the day-to-day operations of a business, can contain legal landmines that materially affect deal value, continuity of operations, and even the ability to close the transaction. Careful due diligence is essential to uncover and address these contractual and commercial pitfalls before they escalate into deal-breakers.

Among the most significant concerns are change of control clauses. These provisions, commonly found in strategic customer or supplier contracts, joint ventures, and partnership agreements, allow the counterparty to terminate, modify, or renegotiate the contract if the company experiences a change in ownership. If not properly managed, these clauses can destabilize critical relationships and reduce the predictability of future revenue or supply.

Closely related are anti-assignment provisions, which prohibit the transfer of a contract or its obligations to another party without prior consent. While these provisions may not explicitly reference M&A transactions, courts in many jurisdictions interpret them as triggered by asset sales or mergers. This is particularly problematic in sectors where intellectual property (IP) licenses, vendor agreements, or data rights are central to the target’s value. If the buyer cannot assume these rights post-closing, it may be forced to renegotiate terms or, worse, lose access altogether.

Additionally, certain contracts include automatic termination rights upon a change of ownership. These provisions require no action from the counterparty, once the triggering event occurs the contract is void. This can lead to the sudden loss of critical agreements at the most vulnerable time: immediately after closing, when operational continuity is paramount.

In the equity context, preemptive rights, rights of first refusal (ROFRs), and rights of first offer (ROFOs) often arise in shareholder or investor agreements. These provisions typically require that existing investors be given the opportunity to purchase shares before they can be sold to a third party. While intended to protect minority interests, they can severely restrict the seller’s ability to transfer equity and delay or complicate the transaction timeline. These rights must be reviewed carefully and, where necessary, waived prior to signing the definitive agreement.

Ultimately, these contractual and commercial restrictions can significantly impact deal structure, timing, and value. Buyers and sellers alike should invest early in thorough contract audits to map out these risks, seek necessary waivers or amendments, and reflect any unresolved issues in the purchase agreement—often through indemnities, closing conditions, or purchase price adjustments. Proactive management of these pitfalls can help ensure a smoother closing and a more stable post-deal integration.

Explore common challenges that may arise during the closing of an M&A transaction:

M&A Deals: Here’s What You Need to Know
What Really Keeps M&A Deals on Track? A Closer Look at Governance and Fiduciary Duties
Consents and Approvals: The First Gate to Closing an M&A Transaction
The Overlooked Obstacle in M&A: Existing Debt and Its Hidden Risks

For guidance, contact Vincent Costa at vcosta@cmmllp.com or 631-738-9100.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

Richard A. DeMaio Named CMM Partner

Posted: September 2nd, 2025

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP is delighted to announce that attorney Richard A. DeMaio has been elevated to Partner at the firm, effective September 1, 2025.

Richard focuses on litigation in varied subject matter including landlord-tenant cases, business disputes, contract issues, environmental matters, a variety of appeals, and municipal matters in state and federal court. His municipal work includes Article 78 proceedings, zoning/land use matters, and defending municipalities.

He works extensively on motion practice and appellate practice and has argued and won several appeals pertaining to land use/zoning, commercial, and general litigation. Richard’s trial experience includes handling all aspects of trial preparation, trial strategy, and drafting trial memoranda, including successfully representing landlords at trial. His work has led to many successful outcomes and creative litigation strategies for the firm’s clients, particularly in the areas of municipal liability, commercial litigation, and environmental issues.

“I’m thrilled to congratulate Rich on his well-deserved elevation to Partner. Rich’s unwavering commitment to our clients reflects the very best of our firm and his dedication to the legal profession is evident through his active role with the Suffolk County Bar Association. I look forward to all he will accomplish in this next chapter of his career,” said Senior Partner Patrick McCormick.

Richard joined CMM as a Summer Associate in 2016 and worked his way up to Associate and Senior Associate before being named Partner. He received his undergraduate degree from Hofstra University and his law degree from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. He and his wife live in East Islip.